alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

                                 June 17, 2011

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 10‐3028

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal from the United States District

Plaintiff‐Appellee,      Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

v.

No. 1:03‐cr‐00621‐5

ERICK MARTINEZ,

Defendant‐Appellant.     Amy J. St. Eve,

Judge.

ORDER

The slip opinion of June 16, 2011, is amended as follows:

Page 8, first full paragraph, line 1, “him” is deleted.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 116 (Wednesday, August 1, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5527]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 5(d) of rule XX, the Chair 
announces to the House that, in light of the resignation of the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis), the whole number of the House is 
431.

                          ____________________
```
# C_2018319EN.01002501.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/25

---

Action brought on 27 July 2018 — Multifit v EUIPO (real nature)

(Case T-458/18)

(2018/C 319/30)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Multifit Tiernahrungs GmbH (Krefeld, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and P. Gentili, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark ‘real nature’ — Application for registration No 16 660 425

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 28 May 2018 in Case R 2650/2017-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

IVAN GUADALUPE NUNEZ

- HURTADO,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 301 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of February, 2024

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### Frank FARRIS, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. A-12583.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

June 18, 1958.

Frank Farris, pro se.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

*707NIX, Judge.

The petitioner herein filed an instrument herein on February 6, 1958, labeled as a “Petition for a Reduction of Sentence.” He sets forth in his petition that he is serving an unexpired term of 45 years in the state penitentiary as a result of a judgment and sentence of the District Court of Ponto-toc County. Said sentence being the result of a conviction of Larceny of Livestock, second and subsequent offense. The petition is unverified stating that “No Notary available.” The judgment and sentence of the trial court is attached and reveals that same was rendered on the 17th of November, 1954. Since the time for appeal has long expired, there is no way this court could consider this instrument as a petition in error and no appeal has been perfected in the time prescribed by law. The only contention of the petitioner is that the assessment of 45 years was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. This contention does not come within the scope of Habeas 'Corpus.

This court in Ex parte Banning, 73 Okl.Cr. 398, 121 P.2d 619, says:

> “It is not for this court to review on a proceeding in habeas corpus the question as to whether or not the sentence imposed is cruel, excessive, and unjust, this being a question that could only be reviewed on appeal.”

Therefore this court is without authority to grant relief under the petition if it were considered as a petition of Habeas Corpus. It appears that the only relief open for the petition is by application to the Pardon and Parole Board for executive clemency.

Because this court is not vested with jurisdiction to consider this matter, it is hereby dismissed.

BRETT, P. J., and POWELL, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<MULTIPLIER>                                      1000
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          40,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,000
<PP&E>                                       1,529,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,421,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,300
<BONDS>                                        759,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     606,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,421,400
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,400
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,200
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46


</TABLE>
#### The State, ex rel. Thormyer, Appellant, *v.*Ferguson, Aud., Appellee.

(No. 32159

Decided May 3, 1950.)

*Mr. Frederick L. Orum,*for appellant.

*Mr. Herbert 8. Duffy,*attorney general, *Mr. William G. Bryant*and *Mr. Robert A. O’Neil,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman, Stewart, Turner and Tapt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 19, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87787-87788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27859]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0026]


Apothecon, et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 103 New Drug 
Applications and 35 Abbreviated New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register on February 11, 2009. The

[[Page 87788]]

document announced the withdrawal of approval of 103 new drug 
applications and 35 abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) from 
multiple applicants, withdrawn as of March 13, 2009. The document 
erroneously included ANDA 75-108. The correct ANDA is ANDA 76-108 for 
Amiodarone hydrochloride (HCl) injection, 50 milligrams (mg)/milliliter 
(mL), held by Hospira, Inc., 275 North Field Dr., Lake Forest, IL 
60045-5046. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New 
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3137, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c388aaaea1a6b1afbaed8fa6abb1a5a6afa783a5a7a2edababb0eda4acb5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="387351555a5d4a544116745d504a5e5d545c785e5c591650504b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 11, 2009 
(74 FR 6896), appearing on page 6900 in FR Doc. E9-2901, the following 
correction is made:
    On page 6900, in the table, in the first column, the Application 
No. for the entry for Amiodarone HCL Injection, 50 mg/mL held by 
Hospira Inc., 275 North Field Dr., Lake Forest, IL 60045-5046 is 
corrected to ANDA 76-108.

    Dated: December 14, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-27859 Filed 12-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2009297EN.01001201.xml

| 5.12.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 October 2009 (references for preliminary rulings from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia (Spain)) — María Julia Zurita García (C-261/08), Aurelio Choque Cabrera (C-348/08) v Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia

(Joined Cases C-261/08 and C-348/08) (1)

1

(Visas, asylum and immigration - Measures concerning the crossing of external borders - Article 62(1) and (2)(a) EC - Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement - Articles 6b and 23 - Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 - Articles 5, 11 and 13 - Presumption concerning the duration of the stay - Unlawful presence of third-country nationals in the territory of a Member State - National legislation allowing for either a fine or expulsion, depending on the circumstances)

2009/C 297/11

Language of the cases: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: María Julia Zurita García (C-261/08), Aurelio Choque Cabrera (C-348/08)

Appellants:

Respondent: Delegación del Gobierno en Murcia

Respondent:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Murcia — Interpretation of Article 62(1) and (2)(a) EC and Articles 5, 11 and 13 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code) (OJ 2006 L 105, p. 1) — National rules allowing the penalty of expulsion to be replaced by the payment of a fine

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 6b and 23 of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed at Schengen on 19 June 1990, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2133/2004 of 13 December 2004 on the requirement for the competent authorities of the Member States to stamp systematically the travel documents of third-country nationals when they cross the external borders of the Member States and amending the provisions of the Convention implementing the Schengen agreement and the common manual to this end, and Article 11 of Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 establishing a Community Code on the rules governing the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code), must be interpreted as meaning that, where a third-country national is unlawfully present on the territory of a Member State because he or she does not fulfil, or no longer fulfils, the conditions of duration of stay applicable there, that Member State is not obliged to adopt a decision to expel that person.

---

(1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008.

1

OJ C 260, 11.10.2008.

---
Exhibit 32.1

ENCORIUM GROUP, INC

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Kenneth M. Borow, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|                                     
|/S/     KENNETH M. BOROW,
M.D.       
|Kenneth M. Borow, M.D.               
|President and Chief Executive Officer

March 30, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
January 11, 2000

22303

#### Macugay v. State

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32.1 -- Section 906 Certification of ChiefExecutive Officer

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SBS Technologies, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the"Report"), I, Clarence W. Peckham, Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(2)	The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

/s/ Clarence W. Peckham 

Clarence W. Peckham*Chief Executive Officer*November 8, 2005
Scrapie Hastalığıyla Mücadeleyi Bitir!

Yeti ̨kin koyun ve keçi ba ̨larını saklayan 

mezbahalar ödeme alabilirler. 

Neden Scrapie? Nasıl Yardım Edebilirsiniz? 

Scrapie hastalı°ı bir yandan koyun 

ve keçileri öldürürken di°er yandan 

ihracatı baltalamaktadır. ABD'deki 

son scrapie vakasının bulunması ve 

ABD'nin scrapie hastalı°ından ari 

oldu°unun gösterilmesi için sektörün 

sizin yardımınıza ihtiyacı var. 

1. Örnek bir sözle ̨me olu ̨turun 

2. Yeti ̨kin* koyun ve keçi ba ̨larını bir 

kenara ayırın 

3. Ba ̨ları ve HER TÜRLÜ kimli°i (kulak 

künyesi gibi) so°utucuda depolayın 

*Hayvanlar en az 18 aylık 

 olmalıdır.

$

°leti ̨im 

USDA fırsat eşitliği sağlar, iş verir ve kredi kullandırır. Mayıs 2023'te yayınlandı
Order filed June 26, 2015

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00440

- CV

____________ IN THE INTEREST OF N.N.F., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 315th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2013

- 06707J

ORDER
This is an accelerated appeal from a judgment in a suit in which the termination of the parent

- child relationship is at issue

. Appellant's brief was due June 22, 2015

. No brief has been filed. Appeals in parental termination cases and child protecti on cases are to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed.
See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (effective May 1, 2012). This accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing deadlines.

Therefore we order appellant’s appointed counsel Lana Shadwick , to file appellant’s brief no later than Ju ly 9 , 2015. If the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt ofcourt. In addition, the court ma y require appointment of new counsel due to the

failure to timely file appellant’s brief.

PER CURIAM
# C_2019383EN.01003502.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/35

---

Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) – United Kingdom) — Eli Lilly and Company v Genentech Inc.

(Case C-239/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products - Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 - Article 3(b) - Conditions for obtaining - Marketing authorisation - Authorisation issued to a third party - Manifest inadmissibility)

(2019/C 383/39)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Eli Lilly and Company

Defendant: Genentech Inc.

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom), made by decision of 4 March 2019, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 172, 20.5.2019

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,647,129               3,647,129
<SECURITIES>                                 4,856,723               4,856,723
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,616,892               5,616,892
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (160,433)               (160,433)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            14,450,211              14,450,211
<PP&E>                                      12,989,803              12,989,803
<DEPRECIATION>                             (6,447,477)             (6,447,447)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              30,885,769              30,885,769
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,576,022               3,576,022
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       727,597                 727,597
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,027,232              26,027,232
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                30,885,769              30,885,769
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,531,319              27,629,939
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (6,152,346)            (16,843,247)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (3,288,843)             (9,172,046)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (6,538)                 (6,538)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,206,549               2,060,959
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (98,144)               (129,144)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,108,405               1,931,815
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,108,405               1,931,815
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14                    0.25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14                    0.24
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Mr. ISRAEL:
       H.R. 6230.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States 
     Constitution
```
WA

AL

AZ

AR

CA CO

G

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE NV

NM

ND

OH

OK

OR

SD

TN

TX

UT

WI

WY

P

IllinoisIndianaIowaKansasMichiganMinnesotaMissouriMontana

NebraskaNorth DakotaOhioPennsylvaniaSouth DakotaWest VirginiaWisconsinWyoming

Protected States

AsotinBentonChelanColumbiaDouglasFerryFranklinGarfieldGrantKittitasKlickitatLincolnOkanoganPend OreilleSpokaneStevensWalla WallaWhitmanYakimaAdams

Protected Counties in Washington State
# C_2020255EN.01001502.xml

| 3.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 255/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/15

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 June 2020 — Boyer v EUIPO — Philicon-97 (PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com)

(Case T-718/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - EU figurative mark PHILIBON DEPUIS 1957 www.philibon.com - Earlier national figurative mark PHILICON - Relative ground for refusal - Well-known trade mark within the meaning of Article 6bis of the Paris Convention - Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(2)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 255/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Boyer (Moissac, France) (represented by: É. Junca, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Lapinskaite, A. Folliard-Monguiral, H. O’Neill and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Philicon-97 AD (Plovdiv, Bulgaria) (represented by: V. Pavlov and M. Lazarov, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 10 October 2018 (Case R 374/2018-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Philicon 97 and Boyer.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Boyer to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Boyer to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---